Southern District of Florida

Cert Petition in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida Dept. of Revenue

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Seminole Cert Petition

Here is the question presented:

This Court established in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), that a plaintiff may sue state officials for prospective injunctive relief against the enforcement of an unconstitutional state law. In the intervening years, this Court and most courts of appeals have repeatedly held that Ex parte Young allows federal courts to enjoin the future enforcement of state tax schemes that violate federal law or the Constitution. This Court has also observed that an injunction requiring a state’s future compliance with federal law does not violate state sovereign immunity, even if it has a “substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278 (1986).
In this case, however, the Eleventh Circuit concluded otherwise. It departed from this Court’s precedent, and “create[d] a circuit split,” Pet. App. 24a (Jordan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), when it held that Ex parte Young does not permit the Seminole Tribe of Florida to seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the future unconstitutional enforcement of Florida’s fuel tax scheme. The court’s holding turned on the fact that Florida precollects this tax from a third party, which means that an order barring future enforcement against the tribes might require the state to issue tribal consumers refunds “from state coffers,” supposedly in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. Pet. App. 12a.
The question presented is whether sovereign immunity bars an American Indian tribe from seeking Ex parte Young relief from the unconstitutional enforcement of a state tax scheme merely because that relief might require refunds for taxes unlawfully collected in the future.

 

Lower court materials and my commentary here.

Recent Decision Applying BIA Leasing Regulations Signals a Shift in Indian Tax Law

bryannewland5 Comments

By: Del Laverdure and Bryan Newland

Last week’s decision out of the U.S. District Court in Southern Florida in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida could signal a potential shift in Indian tax law.

For many tribal leaders and Indian law practitioners, tax law in Indian country is an intimidating jurisdictional maze – often times allowing state and local taxes to apply in Indian country in spite of tribal territorial sovereignty. The outcome of an Indian tax case depends upon a combination of the type of tax or government fee imposed, the government doing the taxing, the individual or entity being taxed, and the location of the activity, individual, or property being taxed.

Many states have levied taxes on non-Indians and non-Indian businesses working in Indian country; and, in recent years, these efforts have been upheld under the Supreme Court’s decision in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker. Under that case, a reviewing court must balance the interest of the tribe, the state, and the federal government when deciding whether state taxes in Indian country are preempted by federal law. In many losing cases, tribal litigants have tried to invalidate state taxation without a clear statement of the federal government’s interest.

In the Seminole case, the State of Florida was attempting to impose two different taxes on tribal lands: a “rental tax” on businesses leasing property from the Tribe; and, a “utility tax” on electricity delivered to the Tribe’s lands. The Court held that Florida’s rental tax was preempted by federal laws governing leasing on Indian lands (it also invalidated the utility tax because the legal incidence of the tax fell on the Tribe).

Continue reading →

Federal Court Holds that Federal Indian Country Leasing Regs Preempt State Rental and Utility Taxes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida (S.D. Fla.):

59 Seminole Motion for Summary J

61 Florida Motion for Summary J

66 Florida Response

68 Seminole Response

70 Florida Reply

71 Seminole Reply

84 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Seminole Tribe of Florida filed this lawsuit challenging the imposition of two Florida taxes: the Rental Tax and the Utility Tax. After considering the extensive briefing by the parties, as well as hearing oral argument from each side, the Court finds that Federal law prohibits both taxes from being imposed.

Billy Cypress Suit against BIA and IRS

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Cypress v. United States (S.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

Federal Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration in Miccosukee v. Cypress

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the order in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Cypress (S.D. Fla.):

299 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

Reconsideration materials are here.

Dismissal materials are here.

Seminole Tribe Complaint Dismissed by 11th Circuit in Revenue Case

Kate Fort3 Comments

Decision here.

Briefs here.

Lower court briefs and decision here.

For various reasons, this might be a good case for en banc review by the 11th Circuit. First, one of the three judges deciding this was from the D.C. district court, sitting by designation. Second, the decision is based on an issue not briefed (which leads to a broader research question we have about federal Indian law generally–how often this happens). Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Court’s analysis of Ex Parte Young an issue of broader, national, concern.

The Court’s issues with equitable relief, and characterizing the relief should the Tribe win as a continued “damages” against the state because of the state’s collection regime is strange.

A declaratory judgment exempting the Tribe from the tax is the functional equivalent of ordering recurring payments of money damages. The Tribe points to no other way around the alleged constitutional violation other than a recurring refund paid to the Tribe from the Department after it precollects the tax from the fuel suppliers.

***

Unlike the tax regimes in those appeals, the only relief available to the Tribe under Florida law is a refund of taxes it will already have paid, and state sovereign immunity bars that relief. See Ford Motor Co., 323 U.S. at 463–64, 65 S. Ct. at 350.

As Judge Jordan in the dissent writes:

The majority’s opinion, as I read it, apparently would allow a state to shield the enforcement of any tax, no matter how constitutionally untenable, from challenge in federal court simply by enacting a precollection procedure.

 

Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Miccosukee Tribe v. Morgan Stanley

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Miccosukee Opening Brief

Morgan Stanley Answer Brief

Miccosukee Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Opening Eleventh Circuit Brief in Inetianbor v. Cashcall

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Cashcall Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

Miccosukee Moves for Reconsideration of Dismissal of RICO Suit against Billy Cypress et al.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

283 Miccosukee Motion for Reconsideration

284 Lewis & Tein Opposition

285 Lehtinen Opposition

Dismissal materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Miccosukee Tribe’s RICO Suit against Billy Cypress, Former Leaders & Former Lawyers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here are the updated materials:

140 Lewis Tein Reply

143 Lehtinen Reply

144 Hernandez Reply

145 Cypress Motion to Strike

146 Cypress Reply

155 Miccosuke Response to Motion to Strike

281 DCT Order Granting Motion to Strike

282 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

“No one fights dirtier or more brutally than blood; only family knows its own weaknesses, the exact placement of the heart.” Whitney Otto, How to Make an American Quilt (1991). Whitney Otto’s quote seems a particularly apt description of the emotionally and politically charged litigation, occurring in multiple judicial venues, between the named parties, whom include the following.

Motions to dismiss were here.

Miccosukee’s responses were here.

Second amended complaint here.